[QAT] 366822: 4x leftovers

[Ports-QAT]

Update to 1.0.4.

PR: 192030
Submitted by:   m...@ozzmosis.com
-

  Build ID:  20140831195001-42676
  Job owner: f...@freebsd.org
  Buildtime: 34 hours
  Enddate:   Tue, 02 Sep 2014 06:16:35 GMT

  Revision:  366822
  Repository:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=366822

-

Port:net/binkd 1.0.4

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407486/binkd-1.0.4.log

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407487/binkd-1.0.4.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407488/binkd-1.0.4.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407489/binkd-1.0.4.log


--
Buildarchive URL: 
redports 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: chromium iconify->resurrect

[Lars Engels]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:02:53PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I am curious if this is a problem that anyone else is seeing.
> chromium 37.0.2062.94, current r269700M
> 
> Start up chromium, then immediately iconify it. Then try bringing it
> back again.  All I get (after a delay of several seconds) is a white
> canvas in the correct size.  Chromium does respond to window manager
> commands (fvwm close, no destroy needed, in my case).
> 

Yup, same on PC-BSD.


pgpYwqmO1SHjE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

wine (-devel) and i386-wine

[Thomas Mueller]

I read something about two days on www.freshports.org about wine and i386-wine 
that alters my plans.

I tried to build i386-wine from i386 with the idea of using it both from i386 
and amd64, in the latter case mounting the i386 partition on /compat/i386.

But what I see makes that look not feasible.

If I want to run wine from both i386 and amd64 (not at the same time), do I 
need to make separate installations on separate partitions?  In that case, how 
do I avoid wasteful duplication in compiling?

I am getting ready to rebuild/update FreeBSD-current and possibly 10.0-STABLE 
from source, am planning to also make a new i386 installation on a hard drive 
in a USB 2.0 and eSATA enclosure, using eSATA.

I want to do this soon, at least for FreeBSD-current because, after running svn 
up on FreeBSD src tree from NetBSD, I saw an update in 
$SRCDIR/sys/dev/re/if_re.c and want to see if that works on my Ethernet.

I also want the new NFS improvements.

Tom

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
>> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
>> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
>> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
>> before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...'
>> 
> As Peter outlined, this EOL was announced long ago, and it was mentioned at
> least once that it was to allow breaking changes. There really would be no
> reason to drop support for it in the ports tree if there were no plans to make
> changes.
>   

The point is the EOL was not an EOL, it was a deadline, either switch or
you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL not as a "here's a
deadline, switch or you're screwed"

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Andrew Berg]

On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
> before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...'
As Peter outlined, this EOL was announced long ago, and it was mentioned at
least once that it was to allow breaking changes. There really would be no
reason to drop support for it in the ports tree if there were no plans to make
changes.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[yaneurabeya]

On Sep 1, 2014, at 20:02, Andrew Berg  wrote:

> On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you.  Not for
>> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
>> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
>> shit... (badly) ...
> There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that
> things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an
> explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more
> people, but of course, that is easier said than done.
> BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the
> most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure 
> ports
> users very little.
> 
>>> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
>>> doing a new install with 9.2.
>>> 
>> Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer...  They still
>> install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked,
>> on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*)
> Fair enough.
> 
>> (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not
>> work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this
>> date and things *might* not work as expected'
> No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care if there 
> are
> new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate to other
> people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported
> versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around
> it will be accommodating.
> The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on
> supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to 
> put
> effort into making it work on EOL versions.

Installing pkgng on FreeBSD 7.x isn’t impossible, but it does require 
jumping through some hoops because xz not being present until 8.x. These 
directions aren’t complete (welcome to feedback if anyone runs into issues), 
but they’re a start: 
https://github.com/yaneurabeya/scratch/blob/master/docs/cheatsheets/freebsd .
Cheers!
-Garrett


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
>> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you.  Not for
>> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
>> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
>> shit... (badly) ...
>> 
> There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that
> things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an
> explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more
> people, but of course, that is easier said than done.
> BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the
> most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure 
> ports
> users very little.
>   

I am a poudriere user... across 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.0 on both
i386 and amd64 :/
>   
>>> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
>>> doing a new install with 9.2.
>>>   
>>>   
>> Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer...  They still
>> install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked,
>> on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*)
>> 
> Fair enough.
>
>   
>> (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not
>> work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this
>> date and things *might* not work as expected'
>> 
> No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care if there 
> are
> new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate to other
> people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported
> versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around
> it will be accommodating.
>   

That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...'
> The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on
> supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to 
> put
> effort into making it work on EOL versions.
>   

Some of us have production systems that span 6.0->10.0 (and most version
in between) and are fighting fires with minimal help just trying to keep
ahead

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Andrew Berg]

On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you.  Not for
> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
> shit... (badly) ...
There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that
things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an
explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more
people, but of course, that is easier said than done.
BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the
most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure ports
users very little.

>> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
>> doing a new install with 9.2.
>>   
> Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer...  They still
> install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked,
> on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*)
Fair enough.

> (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not
> work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this
> date and things *might* not work as expected'
No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care if there are
new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate to other
people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported
versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around
it will be accommodating.
The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on
supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to put
effort into making it work on EOL versions.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Andrew Berg]

On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
> sigh..  when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in 
> business is
> that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your 
> choice.
> The custommers require it..
> You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and 
> operations
> department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 
> machines
> for no real reason (from their perspective).
FreeBSD minor version upgrades are meant to be non-disruptive. However, I will
admit that I have not performed any such upgrades in a critical environment, so
if you think they are disruptive, please enlighten me with the details.
Also, there are options out there for getting support for extended periods if
you need it. Some companies are built around providing support for things that
the original developers have long abandoned because some businesses need it.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and
> operations
> department 

You work for the same company as me?

> some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines
> for no real reason (from their perspective).
>

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Julian Elischer]

On 9/1/14, 7:16 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:

On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:

And for the portsnap users?
 

In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
   

Sure about that?

I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch 
it.


Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install
pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2
install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS

Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after
installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree
with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an
inconvenience.
Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
doing a new install with 9.2.


sigh..  when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in 
business is
that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your 
choice.

The custommers require it..
You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and 
operations
department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 
machines

for no real reason (from their perspective).

On that topic, 10.0 is slightly broken from that perspective because
as you install it, it upgrades pkg to a new version that was not in 10.0,
so you can no longer build a 10.0 machine that matches the 10.0 
machines you

installed at the custommer site when 10.0 first came out, that they
qualified as acceptible..  Well you MAY get the mostly same result, but
the 'pkg' you have is a different one so the image checks out as
different' (Imaginary hooters sound and theoretical security alerts 
trigger etc.)
(oh and it interacts badly with the installer designed to run with the 
previous version..

The first part of the install works fine, and then half way
through the install, things go strange when pkg upgrades itself.)
10.0 is past but we should think about how to prevent that in 10.1 etc.
I guess the pkg config file in the install needs to be locked down to 
the release
until the install is completed. We should make sure the base install 
only installs

the pkg in the release and doesn't upgrade itself without asking first...

(luckily that last issue doesn't affect most business customers who 
use their own

install schemes).


___
freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"




___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
 And for the portsnap users?
 
 
>>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
>>>   
>>>   
>> Sure about that?
>> 
> I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to 
> fetch it.
>
>   
>> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install
>> pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2
>> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS
>> 
> Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after
> installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree
> with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an
> inconvenience.
>   

Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you.  Not for
many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
shit... (badly) ...

> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
> doing a new install with 9.2.
>   
Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer...  They still
install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked,
on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*)

* the 10.0 is the original release, completely unpatched.

Look I'm not saying the change isn't for the better, I'm saying not
supporting older systems until you're sure 99% of the userbase is
upgraded is not a bad thing, what I am saying is deliberately breaking
all older systems (some without *major pain*) when the new system has
just had a major issue, and not everyone had time to upgrade is a *bad
thing* ... (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not
work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this
date and things *might* not work as expected' - even Windows XP didn't
got his root...  they EOL'd XP, then they stated for 2 or was it 3
years, that after 'x' date there would not be any new security
patches...  but you can still get software for XP, some is even
patched... FreeBSD... Sept 1, 2014, you're not on pkg, you're fucked.)

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:51:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Michelle Sullivan, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then
> install pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken,
> and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS

So what?  The pkg port uses _ITSELF_ to register.  The "pkg" in the
base system isn't pkg, it just a bootstrap to fetch the pkg pkg (which
them uses itself to register too).  If you're using the pkg _PORT_,
it's not even involved in the first place.


-- 
Matthew Fuller (MF4839)   |  fulle...@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
   On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Julian Elischer]

On 9/1/14, 6:39 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:

And for the portsnap users?



In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.

Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.

Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command.

pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages
having a copy of the ports tree is not required.

But it is if you don't want the options that a pkg is built with.
We need to do a lot of pkg munging for that reason, generating
our own versions (which is ok, that's not a complaint, just a fact of 
life).


I've warmed to pkg after using it a bit, and many of its initial
shortcomings have been fixed.
But one thing I'd like to request (a very minor thing)..
Could the packing list have some newlines inserted into it to make it 
more humanly readable? Our old tools for auditing and controlling (old 
style) packages would print out that information.

The new tools we need to write will need to do similar.
We did an experiment at work here and wrote a small script that parsed
it and then rewrote it back to the package with newlines added and
pkg handled it just fine, so it should be a very minor thing to add
some newlines when generating it in the first place.
I don't think anything else needs to be changed.




--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"






___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Andrew Berg]

On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>>> And for the portsnap users?
>>> 
>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
>>   
> Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch 
it.

> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install
> pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2
> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS
Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after
installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree
with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an
inconvenience.
Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be
doing a new install with 9.2.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Chuck Burns]

On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:51:31 AM Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> >> And for the portsnap users?
> > 
> > In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
> 
> Sure about that?
> 
> > Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
> 
> try this:
> 
> portsnap fetch update && cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg && make install
> 
> If you *haven't* install pkg first...
> 
> > Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is
> > by
> > using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command.
> 
> Not much good if you haven't installed svn already...
> 
> > pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages
> > having a copy of the ports tree is not required.
> 
> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install
> pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2
> install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS

Why and how would someone delete a file off a running 9.2 system?  New releases 
already use pkg.

The first time you attempt to use pkg on a pkg-enabled release, it prompts you 
to download ports-mgmt/pkg and manually installs it.   It's called 
"bootstrapping"

This is not an issue here.

Try it for yourself.

-- 
Chuck Burns
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> And for the portsnap users?
>>
>>
>> 
> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
>   
Sure about that?
> Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
>   
try this:

portsnap fetch update && cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg && make install

If you *haven't* install pkg first...
> Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
> using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command.
>   
Not much good if you haven't installed svn already...
> pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages
> having a copy of the ports tree is not required.
>
>   
Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install
pkg on it...  Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2
install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS


-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Sam Fourman Jr.]

>
> And for the portsnap users?
>
>
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.

Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.

Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command.

pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages
having a copy of the ports tree is not required.

>
>
> --
> Michelle Sullivan
> http://www.mhix.org/
>
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>



-- 

Sam Fourman Jr.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: poudriere and DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES

[Russell L. Carter]

On 09/01/14 18:29, Chuck Burns wrote:
> On Monday, September 01, 2014 5:17:06 PM Russell L. Carter wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> root@terpsichore> cat /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
>> #
>> DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES
>> root@terpsichore>
>>
>> Running poudriere I see that it does indeed concatenate
>> that make.conf into its configuration.  But all those rotten,
>> terrible, awful buggy ancient security-nightmare linux-f10
>> ports still fail.  What should I do instead?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Russell
>> ___
>> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> 
> Wait for the f20 ports? They're being worked on, according to some other 
> mailing lists that I'm on..
> 

Ok, that's fine.  And maybe that linux-f20 port is great news.  (What
"mailing lists" would those be, that one gets that news?)

However, what I would like to learn is if poudriere
is able to understand DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES, and if so, how to
enable it.  I'm not asking a political question here, just a technical
one.  If this is possible, how do I do it?

Thanks,
Russell
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: poudriere and DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES

[Chuck Burns]

On Monday, September 01, 2014 5:17:06 PM Russell L. Carter wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> root@terpsichore> cat /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
> #
> DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES
> root@terpsichore>
> 
> Running poudriere I see that it does indeed concatenate
> that make.conf into its configuration.  But all those rotten,
> terrible, awful buggy ancient security-nightmare linux-f10
> ports still fail.  What should I do instead?
> 
> Thanks,
> Russell
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Wait for the f20 ports? They're being worked on, according to some other 
mailing lists that I'm on..

-- 
Chuck Burns
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

chromium iconify->resurrect

[Russell L. Carter]

Greetings,

I am curious if this is a problem that anyone else is seeing.
chromium 37.0.2062.94, current r269700M

Start up chromium, then immediately iconify it. Then try bringing it
back again.  All I get (after a delay of several seconds) is a white
canvas in the correct size.  Chromium does respond to window manager
commands (fvwm close, no destroy needed, in my case).

Thanks,
Russell
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: pkg-fallout USE_PACKAGE_DEPENDS_ONLY and SIGERR?

[meta]

Bryan,

Thank you very much, I try to fix it.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:14:40AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 8/29/2014 2:07 AM, Koichiro IWAO wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > How can I fix following two pkg-fallout notifications?  The one of them
> > is about
> > dependency, another one is SIGERR.  I have no idea how to fix it. 
> > Please help.
> > 
> >> ===>   USE_PACKAGE_DEPENDS_ONLY set - not building missing dependency
> >> from source
> >> *** Error code 1
> >>
> >> Stop.
> >> make: stopped in /usr/ports/japanese/font-ricty
> > 
> >> ==>  Building for ja-font-ricty-discord-3.2.3
> >> cd
> >> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/japanese/font-ricty-discord/work/yascentur-Ricty-0fd7047
> >> &&
> >> /bin/sh
> >> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/japanese/font-ricty-discord/work/yascentur-Ricty-0fd7047/ricty_generator.sh
> >>
> >> /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/OTF/Inconsolata.otf 
> >> /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/migu-1m-regular.ttf
> >> /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/migu-1m-bold.ttf
> >> Ricty Generator 3.2.3b
> >>
> >> Author: Yasunori Yusa 
> >>
> >> This script is to generate ``Ricty'' font from Inconsolata and Migu 1M.
> >> It requires 2-5 minutes to generate Ricty. Owing to SIL Open Font License
> >> Version 1.1 section 5, it is PROHIBITED to distribute the generated font.
> >>
> >> trap: bad signal ERR
> >> *** Error code 2
> >>
> 
> For ricty-discord:
> 
> The ricty_generator.sh script is using a bashism and expects to use bash
> as noted in at the top of the script.
> 
> font-ricty/Makefile is running with /bin/sh though:
>  56 do-build:
>  57 cd ${WRKSRC} &&\
>  58 ${SH} ${WRKSRC}/ricty_generator.sh \
> 
> You'll need a BUILD_DEPENDS on bash and use ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash rather
> than ${SH} there.
> 
> Or patch out whatever the trap is doing in the script.
> 
> I'm not sure how japanese/font-ricty has ever worked.
> 
> For font-ricty:
> 
> It is likely a false positive failure in a way. Because
> font-ricty-discord did not build it cannot build font-ricty either. It
> should have *skipped* trying, but it managed to try and found that its
> dependency was not built. Fix font-ricty-discord and it should fix
> font-ricty.
> 
> >> Stop in /usr/ports/japanese/font-ricty-discord.
> >> *** Error code 1
> > 
> > http://beefy2.isc.freebsd.org/data/10amd64-quarterly/2014-08-27_15h21m01s/logs/ja-font-ricty-3.2.3.log
> > 
> > http://beefy1.isc.freebsd.org/data/84i386-default/2014-08-15_14h18m35s/logs/ja-font-ricty-discord-3.2.3.log
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Bryan Drewery
> 

-- 
`whois vmeta.jp | nkf -w`
meta 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Michelle Sullivan]

Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
> system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
>
> if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade 
> your
> system.
>
> The simplest way is
> cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg
> make install
> then run 
> pkg2ng
>
> You will have lots of warning, don't be scared, they are expected, pkg_*
> databases used to get easily mangled. pkg2ng is most of the time able to deal
> with it.
>
> If however you encounter a problem then please report to p...@freebsd.org
>
> A tag has been applied to the ports tree if you need to get the latest ports
> tree before the EOL of pkg_install:
> https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/tags/PKG_INSTALL_EOL
>
> A branch has been created if some committers want to provides updates on the
> for pkg_install users:
> https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/branches/pkg_install
>
> Please note that this branch is not officially maintained and that we strongly
> recommend that you do migrate to pkg(8)
>
> Best regards,
> Bapt on behalf of portmgr
>   
And for the portsnap users?



-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

poudriere and DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES

[Russell L. Carter]

Greetings,

root@terpsichore> cat /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
#
DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES
root@terpsichore>

Running poudriere I see that it does indeed concatenate
that make.conf into its configuration.  But all those rotten,
terrible, awful buggy ancient security-nightmare linux-f10
ports still fail.  What should I do instead?

Thanks,
Russell
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: www/horde does not run on 10-STABLE - Fatal Error: Could not pack data

[Per olof Ljungmark]

On 09/01/14 23:44, Steven Hartland wrote:
> Have you made sure you have rebuilt all php libs?

Yes, twice, portmaster -fa

Also, a fresh install of 10-STABLE yielded same result as upgrading 9.

> - Original Message - From: "Per olof Ljungmark" 
> To: 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 10:14 PM
> Subject: www/horde does not run on 10-STABLE - Fatal Error: Could not
> pack data
> 
> 
>> Sorry for the cross-post but this is a bit out of the ordinary for me.
>>
>> In short, no matter how I try varoius changes, I am unable to run
>> www/horde-base under latest 10-STABLE. The error is:
>>
>> HORDE: Could not pack data. [pid 80949 on line 154 of
>> "/usr/local/share/pear/Horde/Pack.php"]
>>
>> From what I gather, Pack.php deals with compressing data before cache,
>> maybe also before sending to browser. Problem occurs both through Apache
>> and with php cli.
>>
>> Facts:
>> The same config ran on 10-STABLE mid-August
>> Stopped working after updating to latest 10-STABLE end last week (27th.)
>> Same config runs fine on 9-STABLE. Today I did a fresh 9-STABLE, got
>> Horde up and running fine. Updated the system to 10-STABLE. rebuilt all
>> ports and the error is back.
>>
>> Please, if anyone has ANY idea what is going on? If I was fluent in PHP
>> I assume I could figure out myself...
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> //per
>> ___
>> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>>
> 
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

-- 
Intersonic AB
Registered in Solna, Sweden
SE556539368201
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: www/horde does not run on 10-STABLE - Fatal Error: Could not pack data

[Steven Hartland]

Have you made sure you have rebuilt all php libs?
- Original Message - 
From: "Per olof Ljungmark" 

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 10:14 PM
Subject: www/horde does not run on 10-STABLE - Fatal Error: Could not 
pack data




Sorry for the cross-post but this is a bit out of the ordinary for me.

In short, no matter how I try varoius changes, I am unable to run
www/horde-base under latest 10-STABLE. The error is:

HORDE: Could not pack data. [pid 80949 on line 154 of
"/usr/local/share/pear/Horde/Pack.php"]

From what I gather, Pack.php deals with compressing data before cache,
maybe also before sending to browser. Problem occurs both through 
Apache

and with php cli.

Facts:
The same config ran on 10-STABLE mid-August
Stopped working after updating to latest 10-STABLE end last week 
(27th.)

Same config runs fine on 9-STABLE. Today I did a fresh 9-STABLE, got
Horde up and running fine. Updated the system to 10-STABLE. rebuilt 
all

ports and the error is back.

Please, if anyone has ANY idea what is going on? If I was fluent in 
PHP

I assume I could figure out myself...

Thank you!

//per
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"




___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

www/horde does not run on 10-STABLE - Fatal Error: Could not pack data

[Per olof Ljungmark]

Sorry for the cross-post but this is a bit out of the ordinary for me.

In short, no matter how I try varoius changes, I am unable to run
www/horde-base under latest 10-STABLE. The error is:

HORDE: Could not pack data. [pid 80949 on line 154 of
"/usr/local/share/pear/Horde/Pack.php"]

>From what I gather, Pack.php deals with compressing data before cache,
maybe also before sending to browser. Problem occurs both through Apache
and with php cli.

Facts:
The same config ran on 10-STABLE mid-August
Stopped working after updating to latest 10-STABLE end last week (27th.)
Same config runs fine on 9-STABLE. Today I did a fresh 9-STABLE, got
Horde up and running fine. Updated the system to 10-STABLE. rebuilt all
ports and the error is back.

Please, if anyone has ANY idea what is going on? If I was fluent in PHP
I assume I could figure out myself...

Thank you!

//per
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] The ports tree is now stage only

[Alfred Perlstein]

On 9/1/14 2:27 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

Hi all,

The ports tree is now fully staged (only 2% has been left unstaged, marked as
broken and will be removed from the ports tree if no PR to stage them are
pending in bugzilla).

I would like to thank every committer and maintainers for their work on staging!
It allowed us to convert more than 23k packages to support stage in only 11
months!

Staging is a very important state, it allows us to right now be able to run
quality testing scripts on the packages (which already allowed to fix tons of
hidden problems)


This is all so cool, but so very excited about this:

  and it allows use to be able to build packages as a regular
user!

yes yes yes!!  Huge step forward to freebsd adoption!



It also opens the gates to new features that users have been requesting for many
years:
- flavors
- multiple packages

Expect those features to happen in the near future.

Best regards,
Bapt on behalf of portmgr



___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: How to submit a port update?

[Ted Faber]

On 08/31/2014 12:50 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> The update is mostly some small changes to the code to eliminate clang++
>> and recent g++ warnings along with Eric's typo, which has been
>> languishing for a while.   I know it's a small thing, but seeing those
>> warnings when I compile the port makes me sad.  Obviously you guys can
>> reject if you don't feel it's worth it.
> 
> Well, it's always nice to check process and procedures while it's
> not time-critical 8-}
> 
> And you are right, the porters handbook still mentions send-pr.
> 
> There is one thing which is very nice to have for an incoming PR:
> poudriere test logs that prove that the updated port builds cleanly.
> 
> If you never used poudriere, have a look at this short starter guide:
> 
> https://fossil.etoilebsd.net/poudriere/doc/trunk/doc/using_testport.wiki
> 
>> That changes the port diff, of course.  The new one is attached, or I
>> can update bugzilla.
> 
> Always update bugzilla (says the guy who preferres mail...)
> 
>> Sorry to bug you if it's too trivial a change.
> 
> No, it's fine. I guess I would only release new versions if runtime bugs
> or runtime functionality changes. You also updated the autotools
> environment, maybe that fixes other stuff as well.
> 
> You re-rolled the distfile without a version change, this is not
> purrrfect, but well, what else is 8-)
> 
Thanks for all your help.  I see that the update went through.  Next
time I'll include the pourdriere logs.

Thanks!

-- 
http://www.lunabase.org/~faber
Unexpected attachment? http://www.lunabase.org/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [HEADSUP] The ports tree is now stage only

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:41:34PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:27:00 +0200
> Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The ports tree is now fully staged (only 2% has been left unstaged,
> > marked as broken and will be removed from the ports tree if no PR to
> > stage them are pending in bugzilla).
> > 
> > I would like to thank every committer and maintainers for their work
> > on staging! It allowed us to convert more than 23k packages to
> > support stage in only 11 months!
> > 
> > Staging is a very important state, it allows us to right now be able
> > to run quality testing scripts on the packages (which already allowed
> > to fix tons of hidden problems) and it allows use to be able to build
> > packages as a regular user!
> > 
> > It also opens the gates to new features that users have been
> > requesting for many years:
> > - flavors
> > - multiple packages
> > 
> > Expect those features to happen in the near future.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Bapt on behalf of portmgr
> > 
> 
> Impressive effort and totally worth it.
> 
> Could you maybe publish the list of all ports that didn't make it
> on the wiki (e.g. at https://wiki.freebsd.org/ports/StageDir)?
> 
> -- 
> Michael Gmelin

I added the list to the wiki page I try to maintain it up to date
https://people.FreeBSD.org/~bapt/notstaged.txt

regards,
Bapt


pgpS258_Rsn_L.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Cant get gimp to use xsane with FreeBSD 10.-RELRASE

[Mike Clarke]

On Monday 18 August 2014 21:10:46 I wrote:

> The output from gimp --verbose shows the following problem:
> 
> Parsing '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/pluginrc'
> Querying plug-in: '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane'
> /home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane: GIMP support missing
> Terminating plug-in: '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane'
> Writing '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/pluginrc'

After doing a bit more digging around I've tracked it down to a 
problem with xsane-0.999_2 when installed with "pkg install"

Running gimp-app-2.8.10_5,1 and xsane-0.999_2 installed from packages 
on 9,3-RELEASE I get the error message

 Parsing '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/pluginrc'
 Querying plug-in: '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane'
 /home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane: GIMP support missing
 Terminating plug-in: '/home/mike/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/xsane'
 
But after deleting xsane and building the same version (0.999_2) from 
ports with exactly the same options (+DOCS +GIMP +NLS) gimp runs just 
fine and shows the xsane line in the File - Create menu.

Could it be that the copy of xsane-0.999_2 at 
pkg.FreeBSD.org/freebsd:9:x86:64/latest has been corrupted?

-- 
Mike Clarke
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool

[Baptiste Daroussin]

Hi all,

The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
system for all supported version of FreeBSD.

if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade your
system.

The simplest way is
cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg
make install
then run 
pkg2ng

You will have lots of warning, don't be scared, they are expected, pkg_*
databases used to get easily mangled. pkg2ng is most of the time able to deal
with it.

If however you encounter a problem then please report to p...@freebsd.org

A tag has been applied to the ports tree if you need to get the latest ports
tree before the EOL of pkg_install:
https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/tags/PKG_INSTALL_EOL

A branch has been created if some committers want to provides updates on the
for pkg_install users:
https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/branches/pkg_install

Please note that this branch is not officially maintained and that we strongly
recommend that you do migrate to pkg(8)

Best regards,
Bapt on behalf of portmgr


pgpeWSbKLtRFz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

strange failure when reinstalling multimedia/2mandvd with portupgrade

[Don Lewis]

I've been having a problem reinstalling multimedia/2mandvd with
portupgrade for a while now.  The build succeeds, but I get an odd error
when portupgrade tries to uninstall the old version before it installs
the new version.

> Compressing man pages (compress-man)
--->  Backing up the old version
--->  Uninstalling the old version
[Reading data from pkg(8) ... - 1383 packages found - done]
--->  Deinstalling '2ManDVD-1.8.5'
[Reading data from pkg(8) ... - 1383 packages found - done]
** Listing the failed packages (-:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
! 2ManDVD-1.8.5 (invalid byte sequence in US-ASCII)
** Listing the failed packages (-:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
! multimedia/2mandvd (2ManDVD-1.8.5)(uninstall error)


I don't see any issues if I do a manual deinstallation using "pkg
delete", and then reinstalling the port works fine.

# pkg delete 2ManDVD-1.8.5
Updating database digests format: 100%
Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting)
Deinstallation has been requested for the following 1 packages (of 0 packages 
in the universe):

Installed packages to be REMOVED:
2ManDVD-1.8.5

The operation will free 31 MB.

Proceed with deinstalling packages? [y/N]: y
[1/1] Deleting 2ManDVD-1.8.5: 100%



I don't know where the "invalid byte sequence in US-ASCII" error is
coming from.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[QAT] 366738: 4x leftovers

[Ports-QAT]

databases/cego: 2.20.11 -> 2.20.12

- Recovery added for check constraints and foreign keys
- Corrections for btree recovery, btree creation was not performed
  correctly during tableset recovery. Tableset autocorrect mode is
  enabled on default now ( by define tableset )

Submitted by:   Björn Lemke 
-

  Build ID:  20140831093001-56262
  Job owner: p...@freebsd.org
  Buildtime: 32 hours
  Enddate:   Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:51:46 GMT

  Revision:  366738
  Repository:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=366738

-

Port:databases/cego 2.20.12

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~p...@freebsd.org/20140831093001-56262-406754/cego-2.20.12.log

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~p...@freebsd.org/20140831093001-56262-406755/cego-2.20.12.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~p...@freebsd.org/20140831093001-56262-406756/cego-2.20.12.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~p...@freebsd.org/20140831093001-56262-406757/cego-2.20.12.log


--
Buildarchive URL: 
redports 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [HEADSUP] The ports tree is now stage only

[Michael Gmelin]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:27:00 +0200
Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The ports tree is now fully staged (only 2% has been left unstaged,
> marked as broken and will be removed from the ports tree if no PR to
> stage them are pending in bugzilla).
> 
> I would like to thank every committer and maintainers for their work
> on staging! It allowed us to convert more than 23k packages to
> support stage in only 11 months!
> 
> Staging is a very important state, it allows us to right now be able
> to run quality testing scripts on the packages (which already allowed
> to fix tons of hidden problems) and it allows use to be able to build
> packages as a regular user!
> 
> It also opens the gates to new features that users have been
> requesting for many years:
> - flavors
> - multiple packages
> 
> Expect those features to happen in the near future.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bapt on behalf of portmgr
> 

Impressive effort and totally worth it.

Could you maybe publish the list of all ports that didn't make it
on the wiki (e.g. at https://wiki.freebsd.org/ports/StageDir)?

-- 
Michael Gmelin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [HEADSUP] The ports tree is now stage only

[David Demelier]

Le 01/09/2014 11:27, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit :

Hi all,

The ports tree is now fully staged (only 2% has been left unstaged, marked as
broken and will be removed from the ports tree if no PR to stage them are
pending in bugzilla).

I would like to thank every committer and maintainers for their work on staging!
It allowed us to convert more than 23k packages to support stage in only 11
months!

Staging is a very important state, it allows us to right now be able to run
quality testing scripts on the packages (which already allowed to fix tons of
hidden problems) and it allows use to be able to build packages as a regular
user!

It also opens the gates to new features that users have been requesting for many
years:
- flavors
- multiple packages

Expect those features to happen in the near future.

Best regards,
Bapt on behalf of portmgr



Congratulations :-)

Bapt, one of the FreeBSD god.

Never stop your awesome work on FreeBSD.

Cheers,
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

lang/php56

[Juanjo Garcia]

PHP 5.6 was released last month. Is there any update scheduled?

Thanks in advance.

--
Documento sin título
Juanjo Garcia  
Digital Value S.L. http://www.digitalvalue.es
Tel. 96.316.20.89
Fax 96.373.85.07
Ausias March 104, Accs. - Valencia -

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

[portscout]

Dear port maintainer,

The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can
safely ignore the entry.

You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations
below.

Full details can be found at the following URL:
http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html


Port| Current version | New version
+-+
audio/oss   | 4.2-build2009   | 
4.2-build2010
+-+
graphics/libgphoto2 | 2.5.4   | 2.5.5.1
+-+


If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page
for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of
distfiles on a per-port basis:

http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt

Thanks.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[HEADSUP] The ports tree is now stage only

[Baptiste Daroussin]

Hi all,

The ports tree is now fully staged (only 2% has been left unstaged, marked as
broken and will be removed from the ports tree if no PR to stage them are
pending in bugzilla).

I would like to thank every committer and maintainers for their work on staging!
It allowed us to convert more than 23k packages to support stage in only 11
months!

Staging is a very important state, it allows us to right now be able to run
quality testing scripts on the packages (which already allowed to fix tons of
hidden problems) and it allows use to be able to build packages as a regular
user!

It also opens the gates to new features that users have been requesting for many
years:
- flavors
- multiple packages

Expect those features to happen in the near future.

Best regards,
Bapt on behalf of portmgr



pgpZb6LD2IZ22.pgp
Description: PGP signature